Re: Coding systems documentation

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <address@hidden>, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> > From: Richard M Stallman <address@hidden>
> > Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:43:56 -0500
> > 
> >     address@hidden I think this paragraph is no longer correct.
> >     address@hidden
> >        Most coding systems specify a particular character code for
> >      conversion, but some of them leave the choice unspecified---to be 
> > chosen
> >      heuristically for each file, based on the data.
> >     address@hidden ignore
> > 
> > I think these still exist.  For example, there are `undecided' and friends.

> Is this only about undecided? or are there other examples?

All coding systems that don't have -unix, -dos, and -mac at
the tail leaves the choice of eol-format unspecified.  But,
if you are going to mention about eol-format at the
different place, yes, `undecided' is the only coding that
doesn't specify how text is encode.

> If it's only about undecided, I'd like to rewrite this text to speak
> explicitly about undecided.  Then it won't sound so mysteriously.

It seems to be a good idea.

By the way, "specify a particular character code for
conversion" is a little bit strange.  "specify a particular
conversion rule between an encoded byte sequence and a
character sequence." is more accurate (and I think clearer).

---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden